UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Spiderzed/2011-10-07 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Spiderzed » 2011-10-07 Misconduct

7 October

• Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

See here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

All I did was to make a crappy edit a bit less crappy by at least linking an explanation for the main page change. Sure, in hindsight, I should have simply rolled it back. But I don't see how my edit made the page worse, not to speak of bad faith. Even a soft warning would be ridiculous, IMHO. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 9 October 2011 (BST)

This one is a little borderline. He's adding info on the reason for the idiocy. Should have just rolled it back -- boxy 06:41, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Yes, he should have just rolledback rather than adding the link, but adding the explanation isn't vandalism by itself. I'd still recommend a soft warning of "Be more responsible when editing protected pages".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:12, 11 October 2011 (BST)

Should have immediately rollbacked the edit that was obviously vandalism/misconduct. Instead of doing so he just made an irrelevant alteration, irrelevant as it was going to be reverted regardless. He probably did not want to feel left out on the joke, but that's not a proper sysops action. If you see blatant vandalism like that a sysops should always act when possible, maybe ignoring it if you can't be bothered (though still poor), but certainly not toying with it for kicks. A soft-warning really isn't that ridiculous considering this and should it happen again it should just be a warning altogether.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Actually, there's a point to be made that it's probably not vandalism but, I could see the argument for misconduct. Assisting inappropriate edits isn't something sysops should be doing, someone vandalizes the main page it should be revert on site. Not link to an explanation of the joke. Oh, and get your soft-warnings out of here, you don't non-punish on A/M unless you're trying to shame someone instead of curtail misuse of privileges(the point of this procedure). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:32, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Maybe for you, but in my opinion soft-warnings can be used to discourage users from making certain actions, nothing more. There's no policy on soft-warnings whatsoever and there's no reason why we couldn't use it on misconduct as well. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:37, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I suppose it could be construed as Technical Misconduct (editing protected page, not reverting silly change, sysop higher responsibility, slap on the wrist don't do it again yadda yadda), although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

I'm pretty sure sysops have never been forced to do their job before. If a sysop sees that a spambit has vandalised a page, they don't have to revert and ban the bot. They should, but they don't have to. On that basis, imo, the rulings shouldn't focus on what he should have done, but on the nature of the edit he actually made, and whether or not that was misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:13, 13 October 2011 (BST)

There is an important distinction between your example and this case. Namely, that if you for whatever reason do not ban a user, you are not using sysop powers, therefore by definition it cannot be misconduct. On the other hand, editing a protected page is a sysop-only power, and Spiderzed's edit played along with the “joke”, thereby implicitly approving of the vandalism (else he would have reverted it), thus Misconduct.

That said, TRWTF was that farce of an Arby's case being allowed to proceed as long as it did. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:22, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Btw, it may not be clear from my previous statements, like User:Revenant I believe this to be Misconduct for most of the same reasons. We've punished intentionally ignoring vandalism before. It's more than procedural certainly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Also, I want everyone who uses templates and formatting in section headers to die, please. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:50, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Agreed.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Inafire! -- boxy 10:50, 15 October 2011 (BST)

What a fucking stupid case. He looked at it and made the right move. Fuck you axe. annoying 04:00, 13 October 2011 (BST)

What you say?!? He didn't update the wiki news box to announce the change – a heinous crime of the highest calibre. We should throw the book at him! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

.....EXACTLY annoying 05:24, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Hahaha. Never change, wiki admins! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:35, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Again, COUGH.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:45, 24 October 2011 (BST)

I count two for Misconduct, one for Not Misconduct. I think "Mehsconduct" could sum it up. I move we make Spiderzed warn himself and record the punishment himself. All in favour? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:48, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Aye. ~ _{16:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}

BTW one of you forgot to sign your ruling. Tsk. ~ _{16:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}

I would just to get over with this farce, but there is policy. -- Spiderzed█ 16:21, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Oh, yeah. How annoying. Well, I'll wait a little longer for others to weight in, then we'll end this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:56, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Not that the sysop team needs to be told to do their job or anything, but please do your job, sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I count one "Not Misconduct" one "Technical Misconduct" one "Misconduct" and a "Mehsconduct" from myself. I'd sum it up as Misconduct. Spidey, if you see potential vandalism like this in the future, don't add to the dog pile. Just revert or at the least just don't add to it. Your punishment is a warning. ~ _{15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)}